(No rhyme or reason in order or phrasing, but all meant to be applied to one or both of the interviews)
- A simple explanation is not a possiblity
- How we now understand things is correct and won't change radically in the future
- Common materials means a common ancestor and not just a common designer using common materials
- Faith relies on faith
- Genesis 1 time periods can't be literal
- Things can't just have the appearance of age
- If we can't explain it it can't be possible
- There is nothing that will be outside our experience/ability/observations
- If it is outside our expereince/ability/observations we can't just say "we don't know" we must say "it can't be"
- If you have a different idea other than evolution you can't be rational
- The rates at which things progress has always been the same and always will be
- Organized religions and their teachings are the same as Biblical teachings
- My own religious beliefs are the same as Biblical teachings
- I couldn't have reasons, other than science, that could be preventing me from seeing an opposing view (Collins discussion of his fear of accepting Christianity as a scientist was insightful)
- Science=purely rational Reilgious=purely faith they both can't be a mix of both
- Christianity is contradictory and science/scientist are contradiction free
- Contradicitions between Christians and even the same Christian discredits them but contradictions between scientist or even from the same scientist doesn't discredit them
- You can believe in a designerless evolution and still talk of morality and meaning of life and have any credibility or force of athourity
But, the big one is there is/is not a designer.
If you believe there isn't a designer then everthing is grounded on that assumption including the evidence you use to prove your assumptions. Dawkins talk of "there can't be a God because evolution doesn't allow for it" was a great illustration of this. There can be no God because evolution doesn't allow for it and evolution is true because there can't be a God.
If you assume there is a designer then everthing is grounded on that assumption including the evidence you use to prove your assumptions. If I believe there is a designer then simple makes sense.
Either way if you're wrong on that big one everything else you postulate is very likely flawed also.
So I guess the big question is, "Which is the most reasonable assumption? Random eternal processes and matter or an intelligent designer." I don't think the choice is between rational and irrational.
Personally, although I know Dawkins would say it's too simple, if I don't start with a preconcieved bias toward creator or evolutionary process, to look at the complexity around us I'd say a creator is neccesitated (Both scientist (even Dawkins) lean toward this!). We do this in all other areas of life! The more complex a device the more we assume a very intellligent creator not random process. I'll never understand how evolutionist can look at a microscope and say, "Who designed that?" and then look at the whole of creation (which they describe as just a big machine) and say, "Wow! What a cool accident."
Once I accept a designer, to believe He created instantly which gives the appearance of age is really not all that big an unreasonable step. (And differing ages at that! Which is what is shown, if through nothing else, by the difference in age theories depending on what area of science you are studying. Ie. Earth scientist in general say 4.6 billion, Genome scientist say 13.7 billion, astronomers give a different age yet again, and all of them change daily).
I think the key is having an open mind to accept EITHER conclusion. A reasonable person has to admit there COULD be a designer and if there is it fits our observations (the usual argument is "that's just to easy"). A reasonable person has to admit there MIGHT not be a designer and therefore evoltution would be one possible theory of things. (Although in honesty, after re-reading that last sentence, I really don't believe that. I don't see how a reasonable person can't see design in the universe we find ourselves in. So here's my updated sentence) A reasonable person has to admit their version of the designer COULD be wrong.
Collins showed that even from childhood he had been encouraged to keep an open mind and the open mind led him to at least entertain the idea of God and by entertaining the possiblity he was then convinced to believe.
Dawkins seemed predisposed to be anti-designer from the beginning, never gave a hint that he allowed for design to be an option and therefore isn't even able to investigate the evidence objectively. He seemed far more fundamental than the supposed fundamental Collins.
DANG YOU JAMES FOR MAKING ME SPEND THIS MUCH TIME ON A BLOG!!!!!!
10 comments:
Well said. Not much more that could be added.
Oh, and after Lost last night? HURLEY ROCKS!
This was the most well-reasoned response to evolution that I have heard in a long time. Thank you.
Yeah, a scientist has to accept that they they could be wrong. And anytime a scientist (Collins or Dawkins) is talking about something that can't be measured or predicted, they are talking about beliefs.
Of your point list, you bring up some good points, but I think you misrepresent some of what they say (though, it's hard for me to conflate Collins and Dawkins because they are so different). So I agree with many of your points. Dawkins is not the pure rationalist he purports to be, he is as human as most of us. Still, here are are the main points I disagree with:
* I think scientists PREFER simple explanations (Occam's Razor)
* "things can't just have the appearance of age", well, of course they can. But discerning the age of things depends on a LOT of factors from multiple disciplines
* "if we can't explain it, it can't be possible". When a scientist says that, they give up. Like when Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the Universe" because he couldn't accept the results of Quantum Mechanics... Einstein didn't like QM and called it "spooky" but today's computers run on those principles. More like "if we can't observe or measure it, we don't have anything to say about it".
* Dawkins is a materialist with no belief in the supernatural at all... if he can't measure it directly or indirectly, he says "it doesn't exist". Collins doesn't say that, he says is something is supernatural, we WON'T be able to measure it directly or indirectly, but that doesn't mean it's not real. but he then says science isn't the tool for that.
* "the rates at which things progress have always been the same" Well, I'm not a cosmologist or astro-physicist. It time curved? What happened in the seconds after creation? I don't know and I can't follow the science at that level. It seems like science has more obvious things to say in the years following that... I mean, there are objective statements you can make about the composition of the Earth in terms of it's mantle/molten core/number of continents/plate tectonics/volcanoes, etc. Did the continents drift about "faster" in the past? If you say "yes", you jus t need to come up with "what processed caused them to move faster in the past and slower today". I think in general, the "clocks" science has identified (layers of Earth's rocks, radioactive decay, craters on earth and other planets, light inbound from other stars, distribution and diversity and relatedness of human languages, layers of ice at the poles, changing atmospheric oxygen content stored in rocks and amber and caves, etc.) are all in pretty decent agreement.
* science isn't non-contradictory, but the difference is that scientists try to root out the contradictions, and there is a "pecking order" of sorts between the harder sciences (physics, chemistry) and the sciences that get built upon these (geology, biology). If biology says something that goes against physics or chemistry, then one of them is wrong. It's easier to prove, disprove things (generally) in physics or chemistry than biology because you can come up with an experiment to test it more easily. So... if there is a contradiction in science, everyone involved starts trying to come up with experiments (that can be repeated) to prove or disprove the conjecture. Possbily the underlying principle is adjusted so that the explanation encompasses what used to be a contradiction. i.e. whatever the best explanation is (i.e. fits the observable/measureable results best) is the one that wins. And SOMETIMES scientists just say "look, we don't really understand why this is the case... but this is the model for how it works" as with quantum physics.
* lastly, I've tried to make the case in our previous discussion that you can be moral without a designer. And with a designer, you can be moral without following the same scriptures. (i.e. I think Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Church of Christ-ian and Atheists can all be equally moral).
I think the thing I appreciate most about Collins is his open mind. That's a deficit for Dawkins... you can't be a very good scientist if you don't have an open mind and if you let your preconceived notions affect your observations.
James said: * lastly, I've tried to make the case in our previous discussion that you can be moral without a designer. And with a designer, you can be moral without following the same scriptures. (i.e. I think Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Church of Christ-ian and Atheists can all be equally moral).
Sure they can, but I think you are arguing something very different than what Barry is talking about. He does not seem to be saying that people get their ethics from what they beleive about God (though there is an argument to be made there). He seems to be saying that people get their ethical compass from their origin (Originator) despite what they want to believe about their origins.
If he's right (and I think he is) then an Atheist still has been created by God. He does not beleive God exists, but he still benefits from having been created by God with a moral compass.
It's not a matter of belief about what is, but a matter of what actually is.
"I think scientists PREFER simple explanations "
Unless it may demand something of them as admission of a designer may. Collins admited as much.
"...discerning the age of things depends on a LOT of factors from multiple disciplines."
AND I'd say it depends even more on it's origon. There are plenty of antiquity dealers who know this to be true. If our universe was created instantly from nothing by a designer more powerful than our imagination. You aren't going to be able to determine age very well. Adam would have been examined to be 20+ when he was first created. A tree would have the scientific appearance of 100 years and yet have just come into existence. A new stars light would instantly arrive here and not mean it was 1000's of years old. Like I said, you should find a variety of ages. It should look mixed up when trying to determine ages in different places and in various scientific fields. And that's exactly what we find.
"God doesn't play dice with the Universe"
Einstein was wrong (I love saying that.) I think the church bought into Plato and has misunderstood God's foreknowledge and the order of the universe. I don't think God knows the future completely or controls directly everything that's happening. One again a religious teaching but not a biblical one in my opinion. I'll blog about it somethime. Look up the book "God of the Possible" by William Craig (I think.)
"what processed caused them to move faster in the past and slower today".
Except most deny a worldwide flood mentioned in almost all anceint cultures. That's a big event to ignore or study or predict what it did to our ability to guess rates of changes.
"science isn't non-contradictory, but the difference is that scientists try to root out the contradictions"
Do you honestly believe Christians don't try to root out contradictions? Have you ever been in a religious library? That's a little scientific snobbery :)
"..you can be moral without a designer."
Sure you can. But "moral" has no meaning and you surely can't demand others be moral. As Shannon said when an atheist makes any appeal to "morals" he is showing an instinctive knowledge of an internal design. Check out C.S. Lewis' thought on our "sense of ought." It can't be explained by survival of the fittest as Dawkins tries to do. I loved his "it's good to teach kids there's a God because it helps there survival" line of thought. So he would say it's good to lie to children to get them to behave in a certain way? But, as an adult he is commited to then correcting anyone who has been taught this way? Hmmm....
The question I'd love to hear Dawkins answer: What would you consider proof of design/designer?
Oh, and James, I'm glad you're willing to have the conversation. It's fun and challenging. I obviously discuss these issues quite a bit but it's always good to get a resonable person (on either side) to discuss with.
shannoncaroland sez> He seems to be saying that people get their ethical compass from their origin (Originator) despite what they want to believe about their origins.
Ok. I get it. Yeah, whether God gave me a conscience or not, I don't think we disagree that everyone has one, and it's an interesting discussion of "where did it come from" if not God?
James> "I think scientists PREFER simple explanations..."
BAZ> Unless it may demand something of them as admission of a designer may.
Yeah, scientists are humans and come to irrational decisions. The hope is that the "bad apples" are overruled because their experiments are not reproduceable or they are falsified by other observations or someone comes up with a better (probably simpler) explanation.
BAZ> A tree would have the scientific appearance of 100 years and yet have just come into existence.
Yeah, that's pretty impossible to refute. But that brings up your point about "simplicity" and my earlier reference to Occam's Razor. WHY would God create a tree with 100 years worth of "growth rings"? I mean, theoretically, if I was a Tree Expert, I could look at those rings and tell you something about those "imaginary" years... some would be wet, some would be dry, maybe they would all be the exact same texture, maybe there was evidence of a fire in one of those years... Ok. Those weren't "real" years because God created the tree yesterday "as if" it was 100 years old... but all of a sudden those "fake" years look pretty real. What cause the fire in year 34? Why would the "imaginary" year 75 be "wetter" than year 76? I mean, God sure has a lot of backstory to create. That's a lot of "work". If all the trees show evidence of a fire in year 34, was it a real fire? For all itents and purposes, yes, that was a real fire, it had existence even if only it God's imagination. That's where Occam's Razor comes in... we might all be living in the Holodeck on the Starship Enterprise, but it is "simpler" (there are less things to explain) if we are not on a Holodeck but we are in "reality." Which is "simpler"? (a) there is a computer running a holographic simulation of "reality" and everything we see and touch is produced by the computer to simulate "reality" and it's so good that it is always consistent and we can't tell the difference, or (b) we are actually in the "reality" the holodeck was supposed to be simulating. Same thing with the age of the Earth... why bother making things "look old", it's actually simpler if they ARE old.
I'm OK with God creating things "in motion" about 6,000 years ago to make it "look like" things are a lot older. Science doesn't really care about that. Science then tries to learn about what God is trying to tell us about the state of "how things look like they work." I mean, why did God create evidence of a fire in year 34 in the day-old-tree that looks like it's 100 years old? Maybe he's trying to tell us something via tha fire? From that perspective, Science explores God's imagination. That seems really really Cool.
BAZ> The question I'd love to hear Dawkins answer: What would you consider proof of design/designer?
If he's smart, he'd play it like Collins... Science = Nature. Designer = Super Nature. Supernatural things can't be proven through Science. Still, some scientists see God in the Beauty and Harmony of Nature. I had a professor claim he believed in God because of Euler's forumla: e^i(pi) - 1 = 0. Five of the our most special numbers related very simply and at the core of most physical phenomena. There are cosmologists astounded by the way our "cosmological constants" are related and the fact that if they were different by very small amounts, the Universe could not exist. Collins sees God's Language in DNA.
Saying 50% or 90% or 95% or 99% of scientists accept the Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about their belief in God.
I guess to summarize my argument... I think Collins provides an example that scientific rational thought is not inconsistent with Christian beliefs. However, Science is at odds with a literal interpretation of portions of the Bible, and Collins acknowledges this. If Collins was afraid to acknowledge Christianity because it might affect his Science, the converse is also a risk. But I'm saying you shouldn't be afraid that accepting scientific truths (like the Old Earth) will affect your Christian beliefs and morality. It won't, look at Collins. But Young Earth Creationism needs to be abandonded and defending it weakens other points you are trying to make.
Yeah thanks for the intelligent dicussion! You can have the last word I'm not going for the world's longest comments section like last time. 'course if you DO want to debate the Young Earth, you know where to find me.
Only two things...
"there is a computer running a holographic simulation of "reality" and everything we see and touch is produced by the computer to simulate "reality" and it's so good that it is always consistent and we can't tell the difference"
I'd just say the computer sim is pointing to a creator who has given us instructions (inherent and specific) and it wouldn't change my behavior unless I could prove it was simulation. I can only act on what I believe is real (and supernatural can be real). If it is just a simulation I'm out nothing. If it's a truly God created world I'm in a world of hurt if I treat it as a simulation.
My problem with Collins is, if he admits there is a designer God why do you need to say Genesis is not literal and stick with evolution. Especially when the complextiy of the universe points to a designer. A designer God is more than powerful enough, and it makes more than enough sense, to create as he did.
The creating with age thing. I don't think you'd find rings in those newly created trees. I think scientist would be "baffled" on examination. On the surface though you'd think older. I think it's God's great wisdom/desire to be obvious/ sense of humor that as we gain more and more insight into how things work they point more and more to design and the Genesis account of a instantaneous begginning. From my understanding those things in cosmology alot of ages and time needed for certain things to have happen don't match up. It's as if they were just "created" as is.
I don't think Old Earth and Christianity are neccesarily incompatiable. It's not a salvational issue. But, I think for thinking people it poses some problems.
A few resaons why: The actual language of Gen. 1 is not poetic or prophetic (as compared to poetic and prophetic sections) it is literal. The moment you step outside of good literary studies of scripture the whole of scripture can become subjective instead of objective. I pick and choose what is "real" and "allegory" instead of letting the content and language itself inform me if its real or allegorical.
Jesus also seemed to refer back to Genesis and use it literally. He doesn't seem to draw His principles on marriage, for instance, from an allegorical Gen account but on a literal one. And He teaches the whole reason a perfect INDIVIDUAL life needs to die is because an imperfect INDIVIDUAL life chose to sin. Jesus does not leave room for an allegorical Adam. And I don't think science calls for one either.
I don't mind if a Christian wants to believe in an Old Earth, I just don't think it's accurate from a biblical perspective or neccesary from a scientific one.
Ok. I'm done :) I'll try to let you have the last word on your blog, eh?
"Saying 50% or 90% or 95% or 99% of scientists accept the Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about their belief in God."
Except that the vast majority of those scientists (represented well by Dawkins) follow that up with the irrational conclusion... there is no designer. And rail against anyone who says otherwise.
Post a Comment